RE: Proposed way forward with the transition mechanisms

["Bound, Jim" <jim.bound@hp.com>]

I agree we would need an additional spec.  Again this one is deployed
already in several very large pre-production pilots serving many users
and sites.
/jim 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Pekka Savola
> Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 5:35 AM
> To: Tim Chown
> Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Proposed way forward with the transition mechanisms
> 
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004, Tim Chown wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 11:06:55AM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > > 
> > > 6to4 is already Proposed Standard, so its status is not currently 
> > > under discussion. Deployment is its own reward.
> > 
> > I was only commenting on Jonne's list, which includes 
> tunnel broker (an
> > existing RFC) but not 6to4.   The list should be draft-only, or all
> > mechanisms, I think, to avoid confusion.
> 
> It is draft-only, in the sense that the tunnel broker RFC 
> (3053) does not document the actual protocol, just the 
> concept.  If we go down that path, an additional spec would be needed.
> 
> -- 
> Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
> Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
> Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
> 
> 
>